Dateline NBC "to catch a predator", possible entrapment?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Inchoate (incomplete) crimes

This link summarizes the common law on incomplete crimes like attempt and conspiracy, if anyone cares.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this concept is understood but this still does not refute the principle argument brought up here. This is not an incomplete crime. No one is attempting to engage in sexual action with a specific person who is underage. A victim never enters the equation because the whole process involves consenting adults.

[ClevelandWasp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Inchoate (incomplete) crimes

This link summarizes the common law on incomplete crimes like attempt and conspiracy, if anyone cares.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this concept is understood but this still does not refute the principle argument brought up here. This is not an incomplete crime. No one is attempting to engage in sexual action with a specific person who is underage. A victim never enters the equation because the whole process involves consenting adults.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but this is the system we've invented, I guess most people have no problem with it. It's great if we can prevent future harm to some kid, but not so much if we ruin some guy's life who was never actually going to hurt someone.

[Dominic]

I've always had a problem with these "stings." Granted, the men are sick...but what crime has been committed? There is no minor, right? So there is no victim - therefore - no crime.

My laywer friend has mentioned that it's like someone shooting a bed full of holes when he believes there's a person sleeping there. It's still attempted murder even though there the would-be victim wasn't there. But I say it's not the same because there IS a victim and a targeted person in the attempted murder - but there is no targeted person in the sex charges - because there is no minor.

[BEP]

Dom. There's an entire thread here that you should read before you post. It's illegal to solicit sex from children on the internet. It doesn't matter that there isn't a child, and there is plenty of literature to tell you why.

In these stings the police cooperate with non-police groups (i.e. Perverted Justice) and take some bad people away from their computers.

[Phresh]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always had a problem with these "stings." Granted, the men are sick...but what crime has been committed? There is no minor, right? So there is no victim - therefore - no crime.

My laywer friend has mentioned that it's like someone shooting a bed full of holes when he believes there's a person sleeping there. It's still attempted murder even though there the would-be victim wasn't there. But I say it's not the same because there IS a victim and a targeted person in the attempted murder - but there is no targeted person in the sex charges - because there is no minor.

[/ QUOTE ]

/head explodes

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone else noticed that any time you apply this same process to any other kind of crime you end up with an absurd situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, try this one on:

Hajji wants to blow up a passenger airliner. He goes to a website dedicated to such fanatics, and meets "Ahmad", who is really Special Agent Martin Danno.

Hajji straps dynamite under his belt, and heads for the airport to meet "Ahmad". He is arrested.

Hajji is shocked to discover that there never was a "Ahmad", just Special Agent Danno. He's been duped.

Do you still think that Hajji has committed no crime?

(BTW, there are all sorts of examples that kids in First Year Law School are taught to demonstrate the legal definition of "intent". If you shoot me while I'm sleeping--but it turns out that I wasn't sleeping, I was already dead--you still go away for attempted murder. If I leap from a tall building to my certain death, but you decide to take out your gun and use me for skeet shooting practice when I'm halfway down, you're still going away for attempted murder.)

[/ QUOTE ]
This example has the exact same problem as the bank robbery one, and that's that there is an actual possibility that someone will be harmed.

In fact that's probably a good reason why there aren't many stings like this (at least I've never read of one). It's generally considered a BAD IDEA to coerce someone into bringing a bomb to a crowded airport.

Who is harmed - potentially or actually - when the creepy old man shows up at the house?

edit: Also is it wrong of me to disagree with those law school examples? I think it's ludicrous that anyone would be put away for murder by shooting someone who is already dead.

[Tron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've always had a problem with these "stings." Granted, the men are sick...but what crime has been committed? There is no minor, right? So there is no victim - therefore - no crime.

My laywer friend has mentioned that it's like someone shooting a bed full of holes when he believes there's a person sleeping there. It's still attempted murder even though there the would-be victim wasn't there. But I say it's not the same because there IS a victim and a targeted person in the attempted murder - but there is no targeted person in the sex charges - because there is no minor.

[/ QUOTE ]

/head explodes

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy Jesus, this has to be a joke!?

[swingdoc]

How the [censored] is this so complicated? The word attempted is important here. If you don't know what it means, feel free to use dictionary.com. Attempting and failing does not mean that you didn't attempt. 2 key points here that the haters keep using interchangably.

* Attempting certain criminal activities is a crime in and of itself.

Some of you at least claim to have a problem with "incomplete" crimes. However, you would have to get rid of all the inchoate offenses if that's your whole premise of why this is wrong. I personally see nothing wrong with criminalizing the very attempt of murder, rape, etc.

* There's no actual child present at any time.

This makes no difference since we are prosecuting the attempt. Attempting and sucking ass so much that you fail miserably is still attempting. The danger to others, or lack thereof, of any attempt does not make one bit of difference. Why would it?

[swingdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
My laywer friend has mentioned that it's like someone shooting a bed full of holes when he believes there's a person sleeping there. It's still attempted murder even though there the would-be victim wasn't there. But I say it's not the same because there IS a victim and a targeted person in the attempted murder - but there is no targeted person in the sex charges - because there is no minor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is actually a really telling quote and perhaps I can help you understand the law's position. Let's take a similar, but slightly different sting.

1. Random guy decides his 13 year old neighbor is hot and he wants to [censored] her.
2. He gets her screen name somehow and IM's her. However, her dad intercepts this and decides to do a personal sting.
3. Girl gets a new screen name.
4. Dad collects evidence, sets up Dateline-style sting.
5. Man solicits sex, dad refrains from kicking ass immediately, police arrest man when he sneaks over with condoms and beer.

Do those of you arguing that the dateline sting is bullsht consider this acceptable? Why? Is it because there was a specific girl the perv is after? There is an equally real group of 13 year old girls who the dateline pervs are after. Just because they're not after a very specific one, does not make the crime any less real or prosecutable.

[Phresh]

[ QUOTE ]
Holy Jesus, this has to be a joke!?

[/ QUOTE ]

???